Fair enough: it isn't the exact issue we were discussing (which was figured out later), but it does show that Einstein did some of the work in figuring out how black holes work.
Black holes may not exist!
- Thread starter RJBeery
- Start date
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I for one would definitely put you and Einstein in the same category. Wanna know which category?
Farside, when are you going to answer Brucep's questions?
For your convenience here's the requesting posts.
My bold in all.
Your time travel thread is a dodge.
I taught myself by reading material written by others, especially Einstein. And you don't have to be smart to figure out that somebody else is wrong. You just need to focus on the evidence, and avoid being distracted by abstraction.
Russ, if I really thought I was a genius, I wouldn't be wasting my time talking to you. Now would I?
No. But it does amuse me to see you spitting feathers because you can't show where I'm wrong. Just like some priestling getting his wake-up call.
Yawn. No. Because they won't.Russ_Watters said:
What you're asking for doesn't explain anything Russ. What you're hiding from does. Here's an expression:Russ_Watters said:
$$t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{r_0}{r}}$$
You know what it is. You know there's a problem when r0 = r. Maths doesn't solve this problem. Understanding solves it.
And when I give it to you, you will merely find another way to duck and dive and cling to your cargo-cult conviction. You know. The one that involves the elephant that goes to the end of time and back and is in two places at once.Russ_Watters said:
Here's one of those quotes:Russ_Watters said:
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)..."
That's from section 22 of the 1916 book Relativity: The Special and General Theory. Follow the link. Read all the context you like. But you will not escape the fact that here's Einstein saying his SR postulate doesn't apply to gravity. And if you go back to the original German version, you see it even more clearly. Because what Einstein actually said was that a curvature of rays of light can only take place when die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert. That translates to the propagation speed of the light with the place varies. The word “velocity” in the English translation was the common usage, as in “high velocity bullet”.
It's really even simpler than that: Farsight doesn't accept the mainstream view but he isn't even correct about what the mainstream view says. The internet is littered with easy to find diagrams displaying time dilation in graphical form and it is obvious from looking at them that they don't say what he claims. Part of the problem is a lack of precision from people trying to explain it (not realizing exactly where Farsight's problem is), but at issue here is that the distant observer does not see the infalling observer freeze, he sees the infalling observer almost freeze.
It should be obvious to anyone who understands what a hyperbole/asymptote is that the graph never reaches 1.
So Farsight first needs to understand what that graph says, then he needs to do the math to make a new one that shows what he says.
[edit] That post was in response to Nimbus. In the meantime, Farsight actually did as I requested and posted the equation for the graph that I showed.
It should be obvious to anyone who understands what a hyperbole/asymptote is that the graph never reaches 1.
So Farsight first needs to understand what that graph says, then he needs to do the math to make a new one that shows what he says.
[edit] That post was in response to Nimbus. In the meantime, Farsight actually did as I requested and posted the equation for the graph that I showed.
Last edited:
It's no dodge, nimbus. I have to take it one step at a time. I have to explain time before I can explain why one set of coordinates is preferred.
FFS Russ. That's an SR time dilation chart. See where it say speed along the bottom?It's really even simpler than that: Farsight doesn't accept the mainstream view but he isn't even correct about what the mainstream view says. The internet is littered with easy to find diagrams displaying time dilation in graphical form and it is obvious from looking at them that they don't say what he claims. Part of the problem is a lack of precision from people trying to explain it (not realizing exactly where Farsight's problem is), but at issue here is that the distant observer does not see the infalling observer freeze, he sees the infalling observer almost freeze.
It should be obvious to anyone who understands what a hyperbole/asymptote is that the graph never reaches 1.
So Farsight first needs to understand what that graph says, then he needs to do the math to make a new one that shows what he says.
Duh!
How old are you by the way?
Fourteen?
I don't think it is hyperbole, but rather it is a hyperbola, but anyway, written semantics aside, the diagram desired is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hyperbola_properties.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hyperbola_properties.svg
This should be funny. You need to understand the transformation first. Time is simple. For the remote bookkeeper coordinates the tick rate is recorded on the remote bookkeepers wristwatch and for both the Schwarzschild local shell coordinates and the rain coordinates the tick rate is recorded in the local proper frame where the spacetime event occurs. The spacetime event being 'falling into the black hole'. That should tell you 'Farsight is screwed' with respect to finding a preferred coordinate frame. Bring on the nonsense Farsight. Explain why the tick rate should be the same for the remote and local frames instead of different. I'll just point this out. In the local and remote 'weak field' the tick rates are 'essentially the same'. Local spacetime curvature is very small. That's why we approximate the local spacetime as flat. Even in the strong field we can approximate the local spacetime as flat. Just a smaller area because the local curvature is greater in the strong field. This is why experiments such as those conducted in the local Laboratory frame at CERN don't have to account for any gravitational effects. An example where we can't ignore infinitesimal gravitational effects is the GPS. We have to account for nanosecond tick ratio delta. Even though SR was discovered before GR it's function in the General Theory becomes the special case where the effects of gravity can be ignored because the infinitesimal gravitational effects are meaningless to the experimental measurements. Geometrically it's the tangent plane to each point on a differentiable manifold. The local tangent planes associated with individual points combine to describe an area that can be approximated as flat. This is key in how GR works.
Last edited:
It was morning and I was in a hurry and lazy, so I posted the first graph I saw that discusses the issue (turns out, there aren't any showing what I'm after, so we'll have to generate it ourselves). Time dilation works the same for both SR and GR, so the issue is the same in this graph as in the graph of the equation you posted (it's just mirrored). I'm actually shocked that you posted the equation. Very sloppy - now you have to deal with the fact that it doesn't support your claim. Do you dare solve for tf/t0 and graph it?
Plenty old enough to know a troll when I see one. At this point, I don't even think you are for real. I think you know you are wrong and are just doing this for kicks.
Certainly it is a dodge...and is what you have been doing throughout the thread, amongst other things....dodging, weaving, whinging, taking comments of reputable sources out of context, questionable mathematical diagrams, red herrings such as the nonsense time thread you started, and ultimately not having the intestinal fortitude to get your nonsense peer reviewed.
Case closed:
OK then. Now deal with this: being at the event horizon is like travelling at c.
Oh here we go. You said show me the math so I show you the math. No you're saying it's sloppy. It's just one excuse after another isn't it Russ?
Oh I'm for real Russ. I'm John Duffield. I'm not a troll. I talk physics. I'm the relativity+ guy. Shucks Russ, Motor Daddy even said talking to me is like talking to Einstein. Now get onto that time travel thread, understand time, concede that what I'm saying is right, then we can move on.Russ_Watter said:
How old are you? Not old enough [between your ears] to act like a grownup.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I did say that, and still mean it.
...the problem is, in order to know whether that's a good thing or a bad thing you have to know my opinion of Einstein. Two peas in a pod thing...
...and if you try to say my opinion doesn't matter anyway, then why did you post it as if that was a good thing?
You showed an equation (which isn't 'showing the math') Russ asked you to do the math and this is your answer. Figures, more dodge and weave.
Why won't you solve for tf/t0? Is the problem you cannot do it or is the problem that you won't like the answer? Oh I see, you have no idea what the answer is because the rudimentary algebra involved kicks your butt.
I can't decide if it is annoying or cute how you pretend to have clue about physics and boldly state that you are on par with Einstein. I guess it is mostly cute, because in the scheme of things what you think is irrelevant.
That just about sums it up. The 5 or 6 different alternative interpretations of BH EH's and GR sprinkled throughout this thread, cannot even find common ground amongst themselves, and none will ever attempt to get their own nonsense peer reviewed.
I suppose the real professionals at the many science forums on the web, just need to grin and bare these nonsensical alternative positions, realizing that it is the only outlet these Turkeys have.
Yeah, it's irrelevant and will not make any difference to mainstream physics and cosmology, and to what Einstein originally thought.
Russ
You can use the first component of the Schwarzschild metric.
dTau = (1-2M/r)^1/2 dt_bkkpr
For example r=4M [2*the Schwarzschild radius]
the tick ratio
dTau / dt_bkkpr = (1-2M/4M)^1/2 dt_bkkpr = .7071 The remote bookkeeper reckons every time his wristwatch measures one tick .7071 tick is measured in the local proper frame where the spacetime event occurs.
You can use velocity by substituting v^2 for 2M/r
v^2 = 2M/r
For velocity
Remote coordinates
dr/dt_bkkpr = (1-2M/r)(2M/r)^1/2 [when r->2M dr/dt_bkkpr -> 0] This measurement is frame dependent something that Farsight doesn't understand.
Local coordinates
dr/dt_shell = (2M/r)^1/2 [when r->2M dr/dt_shell -> 1, c=1]
dt_shell = dTau
Thanks for posting Russ.
Last edited:
I know what the answer is.
I know what, why don't you and Russ get brucep to tell you the answer. See above. Ask him to do the r=2M example.
This is going to be fun.
Apologies, I'm not into the mathematical side of it but here are a few facts and postulates of relativity and BH's...
[1] All FoR's are valid.
[2] An outside FoR, will never see a person with a clock cross the EH...all he will see is a slowing down of time and gradually red shift to infinity...no actual stopping of time, since that person and clock is never seen to reach the EH.
[3] From a local FoR of the person and his clock, nothing is seen to happen and all time passes as per normal as he approaches and crosses the EH. [Ignoring tidal effects]
That's it Farsight...pure and simple.....but you just refuse to accept it, don't you?